This is such a tragic, romantic story. To think that just six years later, a marriage between a royal (duke of Kent) and a divorced Catholic was sanctioned. But true tragedies cannot have "happy endings", but it's happy in the sense that she still wears his ring around her neck and remembers him with love.
Concerning Prince Williams diagnosis of porphyria, this is how I read it. One story says it was first dx'd in Africa where he was working, and this rings true, since African doctors are usually more capable of dx'ing porphyria, since the type William had is so common in South Africa that I've read that one out of five hundred people have it (from a Dutch gene). I also read that the first hint of it was when Princess Alice saw a lesion on his face and had him tested--she obviously had some knowledge of lesions occurring on skin in VP, particularly with sun exposure. And a British doctor then diagnosed him on the basis of symptoms and on the basis also of having read the new book, written by two physicians who were mother and son, about how George III and others in the family probably suffered from porphyria.

I have recently read the book, The Purple Secret, about porphyria in the royal family, and I have to amend my above post (written some time ago) about the DNA studies on the bones of Queen Victoria's daughter Vicki and Vicki's descendant Feodora. These studies seemed positive for Vicki (but not absolute, due to age of the bones) but were impossible to succeed with Feodora, due to mixing of her remains with that of her husband, with whom she had been buried. However, this book does give an exhaustive study of the symptoms which led the authors to believe in the existence of porphyria in the royal family.

I myself have porphyria, and I can attest that their explanation of symptoms is accurate, exhaustively so. Perhaps only someone like me could be interested enough to read these exhaustive accounts of others in the family, in modern times, who probably had porphyria, or were indeed diagnosed with it (the diagnosed ones were not the more famous royals of modern times, but were relatives).

Obviously I had feel an especial attraction to the Gloucestors because of this, and am particularly interested in two things. I enjoy the Scottish descent of Princess Alice, who was more the Scots/Hungarian type, like the Stewart family, than the other Germanic royals. My porphyria line is also Scottish, and goes back to the middle ages and connection to the Stewarts, discovered only after my diagnosis prompted me to take a look at my roots.
Secondly, I am here to say that probably the present Duke of Gloucester and his descendants (Richard) are free of porphyria. He shows no signs, nor do his children, from what I've read, which is of course not like knowing them first hand. What a dandy family!

Probably William got his porphyria from his father, who has been written up in one post here as being constantly ill as a youngster. But Princess Alice's descent from the Stewarts and their relations is very suggestive, as is her knowledge of what is an outward sign of porphyria ( a lesion). Probably Princess Alice did not have it, but simply had read a lot about it, because of family knowledge of it. The fact that she lived to be very old does not preclude it, as porphs can often live to ripe old ages, especially if they know what triggers to avoid and what lifestyle is best for them.
Prince William seems to have been very active and capable, and could have lived a long life had he not been smitten by "fate".

Well it's quite unexpected.
A bit far fetched too, and the number of inaccuracies is quite appealing (well it's the DM). I really doubt this lady would have been a "popular minor royal", look at the present Duchess of Gloucester , practicaly unknown from the public.
40 years later the lady seems a little bit bitter...

There's something about contemporary tabloid-type journalisam which not only raises the hackles but casts doubt on the credibility of what is claimed to have happened, or what is claimed to be the attitudes of various individuals involved. I'd expect experienced journalists to be aware of the obvious pitfalls (surely they don't knowingly undermine the credibility of their own reports?) but this article contains a few examples of those warning or "treat with caution" signals.

Did the Queen really "sabotage" or even "attempt to sabotage" Prince William's relationship?
Was any member of the Royal Family in the least "scandalised" by William's relationship?
Apart from rolling out the tanks into the streets, what "forces" of The Establishmenrt are visible?
Was the royal court really "shaken to the core" by William's "largely secret" love?
Why is Prince William's "falling for an older woman who was both a divorcee and a foreigner" described as "a fatal flaw"?
Did "the powers-that-be" at Buckingham Palace really label Zsuzsi Starkloff "the new Mrs Simpson"? [attaching the label of "the new..." to anything has always seemed to me to be entirely a media creation.]
In 1972 was William's intention to wed a divorcee really "greeted with apoplectic horror"? [note that it is unstated exactly whose horror was apoplectic]
...and so on.

The question of a non-Anglican royal marriage continues to perplex many journalists who are willing to trot out inaccurate furphies but who never attempt to rationalise or even explain them...
Zsuzsi's Jewishness is touched upon in the article which claims that it was considered a problem or obstacle. That may or may not have been the case a tthe time but there is no explaantion of how or why it would be a problem or obstracle, or who considered it to be as such.
There's nothing in the Act of Settlement or Royal Marriage Acts that debars Jewish people from marrying into the Royal Family, or for a Royal to convert to Judaism for that matter. It falls into the same category of often-claimed but never-explained assertions such as "they couldn't allow Diana to marry a Muslim" or "if she had a child by Dodi it would mean William and Harry had a Muslim half brother or sister" or "if Diana converted to Islam it would mean the future King's mother was a Muslim." Yes, it probably would, and?

The meeting with the Duchess of Gloucester is not treated as well as I believe it should have been by an attentive journalist. Zsuzsi is quoted as stating "‘I had a wonderful welcome from the Duchess (of Gloucester). She was warm and friendly, sitting with her flowers and her needlework, and we chatted. But she was very reserved and it was hard to know what she was really thinking.’ Any Royal Watcher worth their salt would be aware that the Duchess of Gloucester was notorious for being "very reserved", and Cecil Beaton had commented on her personality in much less diplomatic language.

Anyway, these examples are just meant to highlight how I believe writers and journalists can undermine their own credibility by preferring repetitive and obvious hyperbole to calm and factual description.
On a lighter note, it can also be used in a pejorative manner; one article I read this week about Prince Harry referred repeatedly to his being seen in the company of young women "wearing skimpy bikinis". As if bikinis came in any other size!

Warren, I agree that Prince William and Zuzu (I can't spell her name, although I knew another Zuzu who was Jewish) would have married had he not died. He could have had a morganatic marriage if the crown did not want his title to descend to his children, and his newly married brother Richard could have had children who inherited the title. It's interesting that the Act of Settlement does not preclude marriage to a Jew, only marriage to a Catholic. I had not known that. Yes, the tabloids make big frou-frous of things. The Queen probably did not stop a marriage, and would not have done so. So there you are quite right!

Zuzu and her two children would have been an ideal family for William, had he desired to not pass his Porphyria gene on to children. She already had a family. We know today that children from a prior relationship can be integrated in a royal family, as in the case of Marius with the Norwegian royal family, the "natural son" of the Crown Princess. I have admiration for the Norwegian family for handling this well.
And their reward: the beautiful Ingrid-Alexandra. Well, I'm frou-frouing like a tabloid myself. We porphs are known to be emotional, although most of us are NOT mad like George III. We tend to talk too much...or laugh unexpectedly like Henry, Duke of Gloucester, Prince William's father.

^^^^^
There is no such thing as a morganatic marriage in the UK.
If permission to marry had been denied (unlikely) all William would have lost would have been his place in the line of succession. Nothing could have prevented him, as the eldest son, from inheriting the dukedom and his male line descendents would have followed him in succession to the dukedom.

Thanks for that information about morganatic marriages not existing in the UK, NGalitzine. That seems to have been the path chosen by the Luxembourg ducal family when their son Louis had an out-of-wedlock child and then married the mother, Tessy and had another child. He gave up his right to succession. It seems almost ridiculous that he gave up this right for this reason. His wife is a commoner, but then his mother was a commoner too, is that not right? Prince Louis and Princess Tessy are in almost all pics of the royal family at work, seemingly being hard working royals, and their cute children are also featured, the only children in that generation so far. So giving up one's right to succession seems to be based not on whether one is "equal" in the sights of some dynastic arbiter, such as Carlos of Bourbon Parma, who irritated Duke Jean of Luxembourg mightily when he commented on the marriage of Maria Teresa and Prince Henri of Luxembourg as "unequal." She was definitely not dynastically equal, nor are most of the royal brides of Europe and the UK today. So Tessy and Louis, the most successful worker-bee pair in the present ducal family, should be back in the "lineup". Not that they are likely ever to become "grand duke and duchess", with several ahead of them, but it would be nice to remove the stigma. Or is it not a stigma in royal circles?
Commenters on this forum all seem to love Tessy, and she seems to sail along as a prominent member of the family (as far as pictures go). The girl has grit!

You will be pleased to hear that rehabilitation of sorts has already occurred.
Louis and Tessy married in September 2006 when she became Tessy de Nassau. On National Day in June 2009 Grand Duke Henri created her HRH Princess Tessy of Luxembourg; at the same time their sons Gabriel de Nassau (born 6 months prior to his parent's wedding) and Noah de Nassau were each created HRH Prince of Nassau.

Louis did not regain his place in the line of succession but more importantly his wife and children were raised in rank and style, making the family happily royal highnessed.

Thanks for that information about morganatic marriages not existing in the UK, NGalitzine. That seems to have been the path chosen by the Luxembourg ducal family when their son Louis had an out-of-wedlock child and then married the mother, Tessy and had another child. He gave up his right to succession.

That is exactly the point - at least that was considered to be the reason Louis gave up his place in the succession. While his father could create the firstborn son a HRH Prince of Nassau, the Grand Duke could not add this child to the line of succession as his parents were not yet married when he was born. Thus little Gabriel could never be Louis' heir when it came to the succession rights but his younger brother could. Now the two brothers are equal in title which is IMHO an important thing when it come to family dynamics. In all other aspects Tessy and her sons are officially recognised as part of the Grand Ducal family and I believe Louis' parents have come to like her very much.

The Peerage indicated that Alexander William Stonor-Saunders is the son of Donald Saunders and Hon. Julia Stonor. He was educated at St. Andrews University.
It is nice that Alexander has his godfather William's name as his first middle name.

When heir to his father the Duke of Gloucester, William was known as HRH Prince William of Gloucester, not HRH the Earl of Ulster, his father's second title.

Wikipedia's (imcomplete) list of godchildren of members of the British Royal Family lists Alexander William Joseph Stonor-Saunders (born 1964) as Prince William's godchildren. It doesn't list any additional godchildren, but again it's an incomplete list.

When heir to his father the Duke of Gloucester, William was known as HRH Prince William of Gloucester, not HRH the Earl of Ulster, his father's second title.

That's because you only use a courtesy title if you don't have one of your own. Earl of Ulster would have been a courtesy title, while Prince was his own title.

Similarly, Charles was never Earl of Merioneth, William was never Earl of Chester (or Earl of Carrick, or Baron Greenwich), George is not Earl of Strathearn... The current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester did not use courtesy titles prior to becoming peers either.

The only recent exception is Viscount Severn, who uses the style by courtesy only because he is not styled as a royal.

Prince Charles was close to his uncle, Lord Mountbatten, who was killed by terrorists. Was this Prince William gay? To be 30 and unmarried at that time seems a bit unusual.

Er- yes. William was handsome, went to Eton where all the boys had affairs, and had to be rescued while on holiday in Morocco with a most unsuitable flamboyant homosexual by the then hidebound British government because he spent too long in male brothels- apparently, and it was in danger of becoming public knowledge. He did also like older married women- mostly as cover for his real predilections. Several friends/lovers of his, including ex- teachers/authors/judges who were with him at Eton, clearly knew very well that his true affections were not exactly going to enamour him to the establishment at the time, sadly for him. Thank god things have changed to a large extent, tho if a senior member of the royal family came out as gay nowadays one wonders. I'm sure the public would be extremely supportive.